What is the significance of international terrorism?

What is terrorism?

Terrorism is not a recent thing in fact it has been around since the first century. For example it began with dagger men from the Jewish Zealots against the Roman empire. However it was not until the 9/11 attacks that terrorism was reborn. We need to look at the definition of terrorism before going any further though. In the broadest sense of the word it refers to attempts to further political ends by using violence to create a climate of fear, apprehension and uncertainty. The most common forms of this being assassinations and bombings. However terrorism does not always have to result in death and destruction. As it can also be used to create unease and anxiety within society as minds are focused on future attacks that may bring great death and destruction. The IRA for example did not perform there attacks to kill a lot of people. For example in 1993 they detonated a truck bomb in London which only killed 1 person. The firms in the area of bishop gate then produced disaster recovery plans. Terrorism today still produces the same responses by the states and corporations within the state. For example strict border controls being implemented in the schegan area due to the threat of ISIS members walking into European countries. Not all terrorist organisations are global though. There are in fact four types of terrorism as follows:
1. Insurrectionary-Aimed at the revolutionary overthrow of the state.
2.Issue-Promotion of a single cause.
3.Nationalist-This aims to overthrow colonial rule or occupation, often with the goal of gaining independence for an ethic or religious group.
4.Global-This is aimed at inflicting damage and humiliation on a global power.

International Terrorism
For many this is now the principal threat to global security. I cant't say I disagree but I do think Syria and North Korea give it a close run. One of the reasons for this is that terrorism is clandestine in nature. This meaning that it has the element of surprise. This then causing people and international actors to be very precautious, which may lead to a build up in military capacity which can then lead to the security dilemma. The war on terror highlighted this as tensions rose around the world and terrorism look set to be the defining factor of 21st century global politics. The main reasons given for terrorism being the defining character is due to it now having a global reach and the potential damage of the attacks is now far greater than ever before. However there is one factor that has contributed to the rise of terrorism along with many good things that have come with it and that is the small matter of globalisation. This has allowed a dramatic increase in cross border flows of people. Also due to the spread of cultural globalisation and Americanization in particular, people in some nations have tried to not accept the western way of life and this has then promoted extremism. This is in fact one of Al-Qaeda's key policies to go against the USA.

What is it's significance? There is no doubting that terrorism is now an international problem which also requires a global solution, with attacks in the last 15 years in New York (9/11), Madrid (2004), London (2005) and multiple attacks in Asia and Africa showing this. The significance of it is indeed very high. As in many peoples mind it is the biggest threat to global security. Not only this but, due to the fear in which it installs in the general population it is thought of many when they now enter crowded areas particular in those cities/towns that have been effected before. So yes terrorism does cause death and destruction. It also brings major fear into peoples minds and this I feel is more powerful than any other crisis that we have in the world at this time. For example not many people will worry about the ongoing atrocities in Syria but many will worry about the recent terrorist attacks around the world such as those in Ankara (Turkey) and on holiday resorts in Tunisia and Egypt. Not only this but the recent P-5 unilateral agreement in November 2015 highlighted that this is a global problem and every nation faces problems with terrorism. No matter how large or powerful a nation is it feels it can no longer deal with these problems alone for example the USA and Russia supposedly fighting ISIS together.. All these reasons then highlight why I believe that the issue of global terrorism is a major one and increasing by the day. For example as this is written there has been a car bomb in Turkeys capital Ankara with early reports suggesting 27 people killed.

To what extent where the Yugoslav wars identity wars?

What was the Yugoslav War?

The war began in 1991 with the ten day war in Slovenia when on 25th June 1991 Slovenia confirmed its secession from the federation. The Yugoslav army was then ordered to secure border crossings in Slovenia. However police blockaded this move and there where several small fights broke out with several dozen causalities. The war was however stopped with negotiations on 7th July 1991. The next stage of the war was the longest section of it. This was the Croatian war of independence which went on from 1991 to 1995. Fighting in Croatia had begun a few weeks before the ten day war and it started due to Serbs in Croatia announcing there secession from Croatia following Croatia declaration of independence. This part of the Yugoslav war ended up killing just under 20,000 civilians and military personnel. The next stage of the war and by far the most bloodiest of the 10 year conflict in Yugoslavia was the Bosnian war. The war began in 1992 and was mainly a territorial conflict between the Bosniaks and Herzeg-Bosnia. The war only lasted for 3 years but killed just under 95,000 people in the 3 years. Then in 1998 the Kosovo war broke out lasting a year but it displace 90% of the Albanians living in Kosovo. The last action of the 10 year Yugoslav war was in 2001 when Insurgency took place in Macedonia killing around 250 people. This conflict took place in the city of Tetovo and was between the Albanian National Liberation army and the security forces of Macedonia. The outcome of this 10 year war was the creation of 8 new states (Kosovo included) and the end of Communism in Europe. The map below shows the former Yugoslavia and the countries that are their today.

Identity war?

An identity war is one which is fought on the basis of a quest for cultural regeneration, which is expressed through the demand that a people's identity is publicly and politically recognized as the primary motivation for conflict. The wars the broke out across Yugoslavia where based around the idea of people associating themselves with a particular social group. This then led to ethnic cleansing taking place in places such as Srebrenica (Bosnia) in which more than 8000 Muslim Bosniaks where killed. This then shows that Sen (2006) was corrected in the case of the Yugoslav wars by stating that "Identity politics is most likely to lead to violence when it is based on a solitaristic form of identity, which defines human nature to identify exclusively with their own monoculture, thereby failing to recognize the rights of people from other groups. There is therefore no doubting that the Yugoslav wars where very much Identity wars as different groups wanted to have there own nation i.e Croatia and Albania. This was because they could not except any other peoples way of living which led to the strong hatred in the region and therefore rising tensions and the 10 year war.

In what way is there a civilisation conflict between Islam and the West?

Introduction
The conflict between the west (Christians) and Islam has been on going for centuries. However it is only in the last 100 years or so that it has come to boiling point. It can be argued that the starting point was in 1922 when the ottoman empire unified. This then meaning that the colonial powers occupied much of the Muslim lands. The presence of these new rulers led to the formation of Arab nationalism. Then in 1928 in Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood was formed by Hasan al-Banna. This brotherhood holds to a radical ideological view of Islam that rejects the modern world that the colonial powers represented and instead want to see a government based on Shariah Law. For example Al-Qaeda's second in command and ideological mentor to bin laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri is an Egyptian with a Muslim brotherhood background.

What is the Issue?
The major issue is that both of these cultures/ideologies think that their way is the best and only way and everyone else in the world should follow their ideas and policies. For example the USA believes in Neo-Liberal economic policies meaning that there is minimal control from the government and nearly all businesses are privately run. Where as in Saudi Arabia it is mainly a government run economy with the government controlling its Oil exports (largest in the world). This is shown by the fact that in terms of economic freedom Saudi Arabia is ranked 77th in the world which shows the level of government control in one of the worlds richest nations. Not only do there economies differ but so do there views on humanity. For example the west promotes freedom of speech and freedom of women in particular. Where as Islam is all about government control and women are constrained with what they can do. For example they are not allowed to participate in sports. Although we may believe that we as the west are correct we may actually not be. It is just the way we have been grown up and the values that we have been told to respect throughout our lives. Were as in the Islamic states they have been taught differently and they cannot accept their being a different way to go about human life. This is therefore the major problem as neither ideology will accept the other and both want to gain world dominance with their views as they claim them to be correct.

The picture above highlights the extent of the problem. As people have grown up being told a way to live their lives and that the way they are doing it is the correct way. Women in the west where bikinis because most other women do. Where as Islamic women cover themselves one way or another including Burkas as most women do if they have Islamic beliefs. Your beliefs and what you think is right and wrong are directly effected by what you are taught when you are younger as you are not able to make your own decisions. So we as the west may moan and try to prevent propaganda aimed at children but we also do it ourselves? I know that this is a weak example but every child is taught about London being bombed during WW2 and the devastation that this bought to the city and millions of people. However what they do not tell you is that the British where doing exactly the same to German cities and the death toll was even higher. This again shows that with even just simply missing out little bits of information you are able to influence what people believe and think about other cultures.

Is the civilization conflict taking place? 
In my mind their is no doubting that the civilization conflict is taking place and will continue to take place until both sides can find some sort of middle ground and accept that they will not be able to change each other. For example Islam cannot rule the world and there can never be a complete westernization of the world either. This is because the current generation and future generations will be told that their way of life is wrong and if they do not comply then they will have a life of hardship. This however can then create extremism as both ideologies try to press their beliefs against a nation with the opposite views people will therefore come forward and try to protect their ideology. This then highlighting the reasons for 9/11 and the many other terrorist attacks in the west over  the last 15 years. Not only this but the western armed forces constant bombing of the middle east in retaliation or to prevent these nations from having something they should not have i.e WMD.

What is the Nature of the EU as a political entity?

Background of the EU

The European Union was formed in 1993 following on from a process that began just after the end of World War 2 which began with the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community. When the Steel and Coal Community was created there where six original members. By the time it came to 1993 there was 12 members. This then show the advance in which the European community made in such a short time frame. However even bigger steps have been made since the European Union was created. One reason is the fact that there are now 28 members of the EU with the biggest influx coming in 2004 when 10 more nations joined. It also now has many different institutions and a say in nearly all of Europe's actions. Examples of the various institutions include the European Council, European Parliament and the European Court of Justice. Future of the European Union? There is no doubt that the EU will continue to expand. There are currently 5 candidate states (Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey). Not only this but there are potential candidates along with states who have withdrawn from the EU or have frozen there application (Iceland) and then there are states that have signed and EU association agreement such as Ukraine which means they are recognized by the EU as having a European policy and may apply for membership. What about future policy's and decision making? Many euro skeptics accuse the EU of being undemocratic as the Presidents are not voted in and the citizens of the EU have no real say other than when voting for MEP's. Not only this but nations such as the UK find it unfair how many migrants come into the country due to it being one of the more developed nations within the EU. So the biggest change that may actually take place in the next couple of years is for the United Kingdom to leave the EU as there is a referendum set to take place before the end of 2017.

EU as a Political Entity
The EU is seen as a Supranational body as it reduces some of the nations states sovereignty. For example things such as fishing regulations are controlled by the EU, as Spanish vessels are allowed to fish in British waters. Not only this but the EU laws are followed throughout the nations within the membership. Also if they anyone is to break these laws they have to then appear in the European Court of Justice. Since Winston Churchill's post war speech which stated the a 'United States of Europe' needs to be created this idea has been in the back of many figure heads minds. As they continue there quest to bring the EU closer together. Although the EU is still a way off this target the single currency and the idea of an EU constitution have certainly increased the possibility. However some nations who where part of the EU did not become a part of the Eurozone, such as the UK. Also the idea of an EU constitution was vetoed by France and a couple of other members. So although the EU continues to grow in size and power. The idea of it being a United States of Europe and a Superstate in particular are along way off at this moment in time. As fractions continue to grow between the EU and the UK. Not only this but many nations are afraid that the EU is becoming or may already be a German dominated body. This was only highlighted by the amount of money that Germany put towards the EU bailout plans compared to other nations and the fact that it has more MEP's 96 than any other member.

Are Nation States still the most important/significant actors in global politics?

Nation State
A nation-state is an autonomous political community bound together by the overlapping bonds of citizenship and nationality, meaning that political and cultural identity coincide. Since the idea of a nation-state was first developed after the peace treaty of Westphalia in 1648, the state has been the most significant actor within global politics. Its roles and significance have included creating laws, economic management and national security. However it can now be argued that a states sovereignty has been eroded in these positions. This then meaning that the state is no longer the most important/significant actor within global politics.

Threat to a Nations importance/significance on the global stage
So why after so much dominance can the nation state now be seen as not the most important/significant actor on the world stage? One reason is due to the growing importance of international organizations such as the United Nations or the European Union. For example in the recent shock agreement between the UN security councils P-5 on the matter of fighting I.S.I.S. The UK can then be seen as being forced into having a vote over action in Syria which it voted for in the House of Commons just over a week ago. Although being a member of the UN does not actually erode any of a nations sovereignty. So a better example in this case I feel would be, when a nation is a member of the EU they do lose some of their sovereignty. For example with fishing regulations, Spanish vessels are able to fish in British Waters. This then shows that there is no doubting that the state has lost some of its significance.

Another way in which a nation state can now be seen as not the most important/significant actor on the World Stage is due to the growing size and nature of TNC's. There continual growth and dominance of many industry has led them to be able to inflict their will on some governments policies. This idea should come as no surprise as 51 out of the top 100 economies in the world are now TNC's. So if a company can have the same financial backing as a Nation then surely  they may be able to warrant the same amount of power? Not only this but a lot of major corporations base themselves in tax heavens and find loopholes to not pay tax in nations were they are present and earn millions of dollars. For example Amazon turned over 3.85 billion in 2011 and only paid 1.6 million in tax. This then shows the true extent of the power in which these corporations now have. Another example comes from the UEFA president Micheal Platini (French) who was told by the French president to vote for the 2020 World Cup to be in Qatar due to the french links with oil corporations.

Is the Nation state still the most important/significant actor?
Although there is a very valid argument for the fact that the nation state is no longer the most significant/important actor. For example international organisations are now being used a lot more as a means for international talks, rather than directly between the state. Not only this but there has been a continual rise of these giant corporations who do have a lot of pulling power worldwide not only because of there vast amount of profits but also because of the amount of people they now employ which then reduces the pressure on the government, for example Walmart employs 2.1 million people and McDonald's 1.7 million. However I do still believe that the state is still very much the most significant/important actor on the World stage. This is because they are the ones who create the laws and boundaries for the corporations to work in. Not only this but they can pack up and leave the international organizations when ever they like as they are not tied down to them in any shape or form.

Has an effective system of Global Governance now become a Reality?

Global Governance defined
In short global governance is a broad dynamic and complex process of interactive decision making at the global level that involves formal and informal mechanisms as well as governmental and non-governmental bodies. The main feature of global governance is, however that states do not lose their sovereignty. Were as in a global government system states do effectively lose there sovereignty. There are many different examples of current global governance systems such as; United Nations and the European Union. Of these two institutions the EU is closer to a World Government as it has some sovereign jurisdiction over its member states i.e. fishing regulations. Where as the UN is a global governance system as it has no real power and can only in fact make suggestions to states such as when the USA invaded Iraq in 2003 it stated that the invasion was illegal but nothing ever and has ever come out of stating this.

Arguments for and against Global Governance systems
There is no doubting that these systems are and can be used as a mechanism to help promote global peace and security. For example although there has been many failures regarding the UN. There have also been many peacekeeping successes such as East Timor. Even though this may only be a small nation as we have seen in Syria a small nation can quickly turn into an international conflict zone. Not only this but the growing interdependence of the worlds economy has led to the development of institutions such as the World Trade Organization, although this has been set up to help the process of globalization they can also be used as mechanism for world peace as the material costs of War are becoming more developed and particularly for developing nations. Both these factors above are therefore reasons for a global governance system.


On the other side of the argument however there is the fact that it can be said that these systems promote the neo-liberal ideology and will only benefit those states who have an impact on international affairs particularly when it comes to economic status. This is then an argument against a global governance system as it reduces the sovereignty of the state. Which is more importantly a fully elected body in most countries or even those nations that are not democratic it could be argued that the government has some consent from the people. As said above this systems will only have a benefit for those at the top and it will cause an even greater gap between the North and the South as if its not big enough already? This rising inequality can only then lead to increases in global tensions therefore making a system of global governance detrimental to the world and not a positive thing.

Is a global governance system now a reality?
In mind you cannot say that a global governance system is not in place in the modern era as there are many institutions that are used to create interaction between nation states in order to increase cooperation on a global level. However I do feel that in fact these organizations do not do that much regarding global issues and they are in fact used as a way for the dominate nations to continue in this way. Although to a certain extent a global governance system does bring nations closer together on a decision making level and therefore leading to peace between certain nations. I do feel that those smaller nations (West Africa) are being left out in the cold and in fact it is only causing more problems and tensions in these areas.

Has the United Nations been effective in its peacekeeping role?

United Nations brief outline
The United Nations (UN) currently has 193 member states with South Sudan being the most recent as of 2011. When the UN was formed after WW2 there were originally 52 members. The UN was formed due to the fact that the League of Nations was a complete failure after WW1 as the World was plunged back into War just 20 years later. The League of Nations failed in short because many states joined and then left and others such as the USA developed the idea but then never even joined. The UN was therefore set up for similar reasons however this time all of the Nations who were at the meeting joined and are still members to this day. Not only this but the UN has expanded and gained many members rather than lost members along the way just like the League of Nations did.

United Nations and its make up
The UN consists of four main areas and they are as follows; The Security Council (15 members of which 5 are permanent and have vetoing powers whilst the other 10 members are voted in on two year terms. Its main job is the maintenance of World peace and security). Then there is the General Assembly which is dubbed the parliament of nations as this is were all the representatives from each of the 193 member states sit and debate on any matter that is covered by the charter. Thirdly there is the Secretariat which has over 42,000 staff spread across the globe who administer the policies which are laid down by the UN. At the head of this is the Secretary General who at this moment in time is Ban Ki Moon and they are appointed on a 5 year term. Finally there is the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) this council has 54 members who are elected by the General Assembly. This coordinates the economic and social work performed by the UN and its family of organizations such as the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)




Has the UN been effective in its peacekeeping role?
One of the main reasons as to why the UN was set up was to maintain peace by both peacekeeping and peace building in all nation states throughout the World. There have been many both successful and unsuccessful actions that the UN has been involved in, in the last 60 years or so. But despite its effort have these missions been successful or not? There is no doubting the fact that the UN has carried out many successful peacekeeping missions such as in Cambodia, East Timor and Sierra Leone to name just a few. This missions no doubt saved thousands of lives. However as with everything you are remembered for the worst things that you do whilst everything good is forgotten about. This is no different for the UN who suffer from extreme criticism for the failures in which they have had. The UN has had three major peacekeeping roles since it was founded in 1945, namely Somalia, Bosnia and Rwanda. The Somalian failure did not result in as many deaths as the other two but it was just that the UN failed to enforce western values on the nation and the UN subsequently had to pull out in 1995 which led to the continual warlord like fighting. Not only this but it has far reaching consequences on people all around the World as Somalian pirates continued to take ships and there owners.

Then there is the Rwandan genocide which in my eyes is the biggest failure along with Bosnia in which the UN has faced. In this genocide 800,000 people were brutally murdered (UN  estimate) however recent searches show that the number may actually be closer to 2 million. During the 3 months of continual slaughter in 1994 6 people were killed every minute. Over a quarter of a million were raped during the genocide many then suffering from HIV/AIDS and over 20,000 then gave birth due to having been raped. Of the 400,000 survivors of the Genocide 75,000 were orphans and as of 2007 (13 years later) 40,000 survivors were still without shelter. This was a failure for the UN as they had deployed French and Belgium peacekeepers to Rwanda however they had no grant from the UN to stop the bloodshed. So they ultimately just stood by and watched the continuous 100 day slaughter. The Bosnian crisis was also a disaster for the UN when in 1995 Serbian forces invaded a Dutch help camp that was supposed to be a shelter for the Bosnian Muslims however the attack resulted in the brutal murder of over 8000 people.

In my view the UN has obviously suffered from mass failures through the years however it has prevented many thousands more from dying. But I cannot look past the UN's failure in Rwanda which led to an unthinkable amount of deaths and the UN just stood by and watched this happen. So in my view the UN has not been effective in its peacekeeping role as it has been in certain nations in which it has just been there as an onlooker and almost just there to please the western world but in fact no action has been performed.